Whistle
Yes, that’s fine, no problem at all, go right ahead.
My toon in today’s @theheraldsun on #SerenaWilliams @usopen pic.twitter.com/didwtQg1R5
— Mark Knight (@Knightcartoons) September 10, 2018
Updating to add a tweet and a pointed retweet by JK Rowling:
Well done on reducing one of the greatest sportswomen alive to racist and sexist tropes and turning a second great sportswoman into a faceless prop. https://t.co/YOxVMuTXEC
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 10, 2018
#SerenaWilliams photographed by Annie Leibovitz, 2003 #womensart pic.twitter.com/y2BOwIMy3y
— #WOMENSART (@womensart1) September 10, 2018
Ffffuuuuu…
Scum.
Bag.
If anyone is interested in an actually nuanced discussion about what happened on Saturday – you know, without the blatant racism like we see above – Burn It All Down (“the feminist sports podcast you need”) did a brief reaction episode, which is available here. Additionally, WNYC’s The Takeaway had excellent analysis this morning as well. The story is not yet posted, but it should be available later today.
Is that other tennis player meant to be Naomi Osaka?
@ chigau – I guess so. Note how the “artist” has made her appear, well, white with blond hair. Osaka is Haitian-Japanese, and has black hair.
Also, I apologize for saying only “without the blatant racism”. I should have said “without the blatant racism and sexism”. The cartoon is blatantly both.
With the blonde ponytail? Yes, of course. And the WASPy looking umpire is meant to be Carlos Ramos.
Image search shows Osaka with a blonde ponytail during the Open. Those images do not show her as a skinny white woman. Wikipedia says she is 5cm taller than Williams.
And what is the editorial point of depicting the referee counselling an athlete to cheat?
Thanks, chicgau @ 5. I only did a general search for Naomi Osaka, and in the photo I saw she had black hair. But yes, no one would consider her to be what we call white.
Here is the story from The Takeaway that I mentioned in my first post.
Ugh. I think Williams deserved everything she got from the chair umpire, but this cartoon is just awful.
My feelings about William’s behaviour are mixed. Many sports people behave badly. It’s not an excuse for poor behaviour, but at the same time they tend to be given more latitude than the rest of us. Mostly because as anyone who has engaged in competitive sport will understand, when you’re totally engaged in the contest you’re not quite rational any more. That said, I doubt that umpire would have treated one of the top men that way in a finals match. There have been plenty of top male and female tennis players who have said so (although a few have supported the umpire).
I really feel for Osaka though. Biggest moment of her life ruined by others. At least Williams tried to deflect some positive attention back onto her at the last.
That cartoon though. Foul. Disgusting.
#8, I agree 100%. The cartoon is outrageously racist and offensive.
I don’t follow tennis, but after reading how that kind of behavior is normally tolerated, I watched the video. I couldn’t believe the poor sportmanship I saw. If that’s tolerated when men do it, then that is ridiculous.
Now obviously it would be a colossally stupid and unfair decision to suddenly start enforcing the rules on Serena Williams if they’ve been ignored for everyone up until now. But I’m skeptical that’s actually true when I see people give examples of worse behavior that went unpunished, and the examples are from 1991 and 2009. That makes it seem more correct to say that very occasionally worse behavior has been tolerated.
But, as I said, I don’t follow tennis, so for all I know players yell at judges, smash their rackets, and yell at judges some more every single game with impunity. All I know is I watched the video expecting to see Williams getting punished for almost no reason and was surprised by what I saw instead.
But…still no excuse for drawing that vile cartoon.
The cartoon is the important point in this particular discussion.
Skeletor, there are a number of top players and administrators who have said there is uneven treatment of men and women. here is just one story…
https://wwos.nine.com.au/tennis/tennis-us-open-novak-djokovic-defends-serena-williams-outburst-carlos-ramos-naomi-osaka/c98662eb-3ff5-4a9f-9a01-be37f4aa1254
Ah well, I deleted that comment (of mine).
I don’t love the behavior either, but the cartoon just blasts that out of view.
Screechy Monkey @ 8 – it is my understanding that Ramos gave no warning of a potential game penalty, in the *final match* of g-d Grand Slam title. He just imposed it, on the grounds that his feelings were hurt by Williams. No, she did *not* deserve “everything she got”. Osaka probably have won the match, but he threw it to her, basically fucking the whole thing up FOR EVERYBODY, including Osaka, because he, the man, got his feefees hurt.
Well, you’ve all signalled your virtue. However let’s analyse the cartoon itself.
Essentially a narcissist lost a game she expected to win and her behaviour shamed herself and demeaned her opponent, who also has brown skin.
Anyone want to contribute? No ad hominem attacks btw.
RJW
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/106977417/australian-cartoon-of-serena-williams-us-open-final-meltdown-condemned-as-racist
Rob,
Not an analysis just more of the same finger pointing. People are scared shitless of being labelled as racist. Much is made of Williams’ sporting prowess, she’s is skllled at hitting a ball over a net, so what?
Knight was certainly stupid to get involved in US race politics.
She has brown skin, plays tennis while wearing lycra and a modified tutu and had a tantrum.
Naturally the land of the long white finger pointers just had to have a bash as well.
Well, from that article here are the bits that could be described as analysis. What were you looking for? Serena lost her cool over a justified but arguably harsh penalty. But the cartoon was not about her behaviour, except at the most shallow of levels. Instead it caricatured her in an openly and obviously racist manner, while using a drawing style completely unrepresentative of Osaka.
[Bold mine]
Add to which he apparently has form in using racial sterotypes.
I’m not sure what to make of the “land of the long white finger pointers” quip. Care to explain? While published on Stuff.co.nz, it’s a reprint of a WaPo article. I’m sure it’s been reprinted in Aus as well.
What analysis of the cartoon would you use to counter that narrative?
Rob,
The cartoon wasn’t about her abominable behaviour. Really? How often are white people represented with exaggerated physical features by cartoonists? The fear of not casting a stone is palpable. People’s favourite gladiator made a fool of herself, let’s play the race and mysogynist cards.
The comment in regard to the “land of the long white finger pointing” refers to the tendency of some New Zealanders to lecture Australians on problems they don’t have and will never have to solve.
RJW, really? I once made a throwaway one-liner here about some Australian cricket players (and only some of the players) and you accused me of being racist, and yet you can’t seem to see why the black woman caricatured in that cartoon – with the stereotypical over-inflated lips and flat, broad nose, along with the very ape-like posture – is drawing so much flak for its clearly old-school racist overtones. Christ, the only way that picture could be more overtly racist is if she had a bone through her nose and a caption having Williams saying something like “White boss-man, don’t be taking muh points away or I’ma be loosin’ de voodoo on yo’ ass”. You know, just like every black person was portrayed in film, television and cartoons until late in the last century.
Or maybe I’m just virtue signalling with my long, pointy, white fingers.
Come on, you’re better than this disingenuous bullshit, RJW. Yes, white people are caricatured, but the exaggeration is of the individual’s genuine features and the resulting picture is usually recognisable as the person portrayed. There is certainly not a generic, ‘one-look-fits-all’ white stereotype as is the case here.
If you were to isolate Williams’ face in this cartoon and ask random people to identify the person, I’d bet that without the context of the rest of the cartoon the guesses would be all over the place, and it would be nothing short of a miracle if most people even guessed it was a woman’s face. If you put that face on the body of a black man in boxing gear, nobody would ask why Serena Williams is wearing boxing gloves. A caricature of Nicole Kidman’s face on a jockey’s body, however, would look exactly like Nicole Kidman in a jockey costume.
There is a massive difference between an exaggeration of features in a picture which is still recognisably the subject, and a lazy, racist stereotype of a generic black person.
Jeez RJW, I didn’t know Aussies cared what we thought. It’s kind of touching to know you do. What problems do Aussies face that New Zealanders do not? Sexism? Misogyny? Racism? I’m pretty sure we fortunately have all of those. We don’t even deal with them especially well, although at least we are making some genuine attempts to address the worst aspects of colonialism and institutional racism. Our formal attempt at doing so began by acknowledging it where it exists in our own country.
Maybe you mean boat people and security issues? I don’t see those as relevant to this particular debate. Sure, we don’t live right next door to Southeast Asia, which gives us an advantage. Then again, plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting other people’s wars, so I don’t think claims of the broad kind you appear to be insinuating are justified.
I’ll adopt AoS’ analysis as my own. He’s put it well.
A of S
Ok you might have a point, there are obviously ‘nuances’ I’ve missed. One of course is that Caucasians can’t win this debate.
I keep out of the discussions on lgbt/SPQR/terfs/smurfs/cis/trans because it’s all verbal diarrhoea to me, I’ll have to include race in the no-go zone.
Yes, you do that.
clamboy @13,
There is no requirement for an umpire to give an unofficial warning before assessing a Code of Conduct violation. The first Code violation of any kind is itself a “warning,” i.e., it carries no other penalty. But a second Code violation of any kind is a point penalty, and a third is a game. Players aren’t entitled to a separate warning for each type of misconduct.
It’s true that the umpire could have given her an unofficial warning that she was getting close to the line of a violation for verbal abuse, but he is under no obligation to do so. And given Williams’ persistent abuse of him over multiple changeovers, I see no reason why she was entitled to any favors in that respect.
Finally, it’s juvenile to dismiss any behavior that doesn’t cause actual physical harm as just being all about “hurt fee-fees.” That’s the kind of childish argument that is made by bullies and harassers the world over. “It’s just words on the internet, get over your hurt fee-fees, snowflake.” “Sure, I graphically described what I’d like to do to you sexually, but I didn’t lay a finger on you, so what’s the big deal?”
Yes, I know — it’s OUTRAGEOUS for me to compare harassment to abuse of a tennis umpire. Well, it would be outrageous if I were equating the two, but I’m not. I’m simply pointing out the uselessness of the dismissive “it’s just fee-fees” argument.
There are reasons that go beyond “protecting the umpire’s feelings” why such behavior is prohibited by the Code of Conduct. When you play a professional sport, you submit yourself to the authority of the officials, and there is a limit to how much disrespect you can show them. If not, then the authority is quickly eroded, especially in professional sports where the players have the fame, money, and all other forms of power. Try yelling insults at your boss, your commanding officer, or a judge, and see if you “hey, it’s just hurt fee-fees” defense works for you.